Comments by "yessum15" (@yessum15) on "The Critical Drinker" channel.

  1. Your boycott will affect no-one but yourself since most people are not so sensitive about this sort of thing. I don't really count the penises when I'm watching the robot sci-fi war.
    10
  2. She's definitely not a good actress for wonder woman. She's a pretty terrible actress generally, she looks way too scrawny, and her supreme lack of athleticism makes the bad CGI look even more unbelievable.
    9
  3.  @PCFixer   I agree. Seems like someone read "empowerment for dummies". Even a badass has to be likable to someone, and I can't imagine anyone liking this chick. I was defending the concept of batgirl generally. However, i think there's a good chance they're just going for shock value in the trailer and it will level off as the series continues.
    9
  4. Batwoman/Batgirl has been around for a while. This is just the latest interpretation.
    6
  5. I suspect you'd also be whining if they race swapped Max Lord or Cheetah.
    5
  6. Lol you literally have a neck beard.
    4
  7. @Lord Fuzzle .. and yet you keep coming back for more d. I'm sorry facts don't care about your feelings.
    4
  8.  Spoon  I feel like you might be bringing down our average lol
    4
  9.  @ButterBehemoth  If it went over your head you need more help than I can provide.
    3
  10.  @leigh9807  eh, Captain Marvel & Star Wars did good numbers. Good luck.
    3
  11. @Lord Fuzzle   Solo was a spin off about a side character we already saw die. Makes sense to do lower numbers than the main storyline. And TLJ had a much bigger rep for "SJW" than Solo but still did well. You're losing by your own rules here bish lol
    3
  12. Exactly. In fact, in part 1, two infiltrator units are seen attacking a human base in the future. They're not Arnold but they also look like big dudes. Seemed pretty obvious that the limitation of the T-600 line was rubber skin, while the limitation of the T-800 line was that they could only be modeled after heavy set individuals since the additional volume was needed to accommodate a large robotic chassis. (eg: a frame with wide shoulders would create space around a centrally located battery to dissipate heat more evenly, while the length of each 'skeletal' rod acted as a heat pipe/sink) Size is a major limitation since (at least in the first 2 movies) most future humans appeared to be living on subsistence and therefore skinny or malnourished. Even Kyle Reese & John Connor were relatively small, lean guys. I expected that as models improved, you would see smaller humans being imitated (women & children).
    3
  13.  @Stephengirty  That is if we assume the federation military operates under the same branch division as the US today. However, since the Navy includes Marines, Seals, MPs, etc. and Khan is an interplanetary terrorist, it's still very reasonable.
    3
  14.  @1MinuteMovies42  She has a face that sometimes looks pretty, sometimes looks stupid. There are many more beautiful actresses who are either already more athletic, or willing to get in shape. Especially when you consider that she is not an actress and cannot act.
    2
  15.  @judsongaiden9878  I'll have to check out Screamers. Didn't know all that about Biehn, and yes the fandom is on full display lol. I didn't know he was that tall, but I suspect it's because a lot of the cinematography & lighting was designed to make Arnold look even more imposing than he already is. That said, I think Biehn's casting was perfect considering the context. Dark, brooding & intense with a lean athletic run & gun type physique. In contrast Jai Courtney looked a little too much like he was hoarding whey protein. But I suppose Jai was more in line with the sanitized, more well stocked and generally softer version of John Connors future militia presented in Genisys.
    2
  16.  Spoon  not sure... what unit do we use to measure basic common sense, civility, emotional maturity, etc.? 😁
    2
  17.  Spoon  we'll agree to disagree, since again, it's not particularly relevant.
    2
  18.  @randomjoe3941 1) I think that if I were a make law enforcement officer, I would object to the job being colloquially referred to as "policewoman". So it actually makes sense to call them firefighters. 2) Feminism is exactly what you described it as, support of equal rights for women. All that other nonsense is something else. So, apparently you still support feminism.
    2
  19. In fairness, I don't think you're the target audience. Not everything has to be for you.
    1
  20.  @dgphi  I mean definitely some lesbians. I think also probably younger girls. Doubt soy boys. In any case u shouldn't get so jealous of them.
    1
  21.  @dgphi  All of the above. You just seem way too angry about something fairly benign.
    1
  22.  @dgphi  Your initial comment was meant to be demeaning of the target audience without provocation. So you're either upset or just generally antisocial. Most people aren't the latter, so it's a reasonable assumption on my part.
    1
  23.  @ButterBehemoth  I guess this is that blissful ignorance everyone keeps talking about. Enjoy.
    1
  24. Damn. So like it wasn't politicized when every hero was a white guy avenging his dead/kidnapped wife/daughter with his dumb black sidekick? Nope, no message there, just good old innocent fun.
    1
  25.  SlayerPayback  lol that's definitely not how boycotting works.
    1
  26.  @leigh9807  Didn't say they were good movies. Just said that the same threat to boycott was made for these movies (esp Captain Marvel) and had no effect. No reason to believe same thing won't happen again. The movie will fail or succeed on its own merits, marketing, etc. But a politically motivated boycott enacted by a fringe minority of over-sensitive manchildren will have no effect one way or the other.
    1
  27.  Derek Charette  uh.. you wrote a book. With no paragraph breaks. Couldn't even get through it. Near as I can tell you want to blow a UFC fighter. Or something like that.
    1
  28.  @rimurutempest9937  I agree. But I don't think that'll be because it had female protagonists.
    1
  29.  @kevinphoenix2007  "We don't care if our boycott has an effect. We don't boycott to produce change, we do it for erotic pleasure. I personally boycott while while penetrating myself with foreign objects. I repeat: we don't care if we have no effect. Also, seriously though we did have an effect. Didn't you hear about that conspiracy theory with zero evidence about Captain Marvel? Please! You gotta believe me we did have an effect. N-not that it matters. Being ineffectual is so alpha." Did i get that right?
    1
  30.  Ulf ViKings    For every example you give of something being received poorly due to 'identity politics', I can: a) give you a bunch of other plausible reasons why it didn't do well. b) give you a bunch of other works that also failed despite white male leads, little identity politics, etc. So how does this prove your point? I mean there are lots of videos on yt where people break down the problems of the latest dr. Who without considering the gender swap to be a big issue. Uh.. batman v superman and Green Lantern was received poorly but fans & critics liked Wonderwoman & Black Panther. People liked Luke Cage and Jessica Jones but didn't like Iron Fist. Does that mean the problem was white male leads? Or maybe I'm cherry picking and confusing correlation for causation in line with my preexisting biases? See? That's you.
    1
  31.  Ulf ViKings  Also, your definition of Intersectionality is just some bullshit you made up. So yeah, I'm not familiar with it.
    1
  32. Fuck that. Stop at pt. 2 if you care about dignity. Otherwise, run it till the wheels fall off. Pt. 3 was trash. But now I'm looking forward to 100.
    1
  33. Bruce Wayne was already depicted as extremely effeminate/possibly gay in the second story of the animated Dark Knight 3 part anthology. The story was really good and nobody flipped out because people weren't so fragile back then.
    1
  34.  @sebaslikesanimations1447  Have you seen it? He wasn't explicitly gay, but he was extremely feminized, young, small and portrayed as delicate and cute. Prior to that Adam West & Burt Ward often joked about the homoerotic undertones the cast and crew liked to slip in to the old Batman tv series. I think there's a whole wikipedia page on homosexuality in the Batman legacy. In short the character has never explicitly been depicted as gay, and it has never seriously been proposed to be a part of continuity. But individual artists working on Batman have occasionally cranked up the subtext and toyed with hinting at stuff like that. I don't think anyone really cared too much since at this point characters like Batman, Superman, and the Hulk are basically the rock. They're so established that they're gonna be around forever. We already know who they are. So having an outlandish interpretation every now and then isn't really gonna scuff the archetype. They will outlive every trend. If you don't believe me, remember what Max Landis said about the 'Death of Superman'. In short, "The Death of Superman comic didn't so much kill Superman, as it actually killed Death." Very old but worth a watch if you haven't already seen it: https://youtu.be/0PlwDbSYicM
    1
  35.  @sebaslikesanimations1447  I agree with you, and I think DC agrees with you 100%. I don't think there's any real interest in doing this. I'm just saying it's not a big deal if someone does a one shot storyline where they try it out. Kinda like how Marvel does their "What if?" storylines where Reed Richards is a zombie or Captain America is a woman. No one flips out because everyone understands these are alternate versions.
    1
  36. Dammit. Can't unsee it now. To be fair, I've lost count of the number of sissy punches I've seen action stars throw.
    1
  37. Stick to your guns! You're so manly you could only love another man.
    1
  38.  @fuzzywzhe  I agree. I'm sick of white guys playing identity politics and insisting on more white male representation in movies that already have multiple white males in leading roles.
    1
  39.  @Selrisitai   uh.. OP directly tied the quality of the movie to Uhura's skin color, suggesting her blackness was inciting them to make poor scripting choices. This is way beyond hating a character that "just happens to be black." Seems like you're being willfully naive.
    1
  40.  Brett Hazelton  It takes a special kind of coward to be afraid of his own words.
    1
  41.  Spoon  not sure about smarter...
    1
  42.  Spoon  most people do. not sure how that's relevant.
    1
  43.  @randomjoe3941  I have yet to see any major feminist publication listing "the opportunity to demean and belittle men" as a goal of feminism. No academic journals, no major literary works, no published consensus manifesto by field professionals, no major feminist institution, etc. If we're just going to define words as whatever we want, you might as well just say feminism is a sport involving hitting a puck while ice skating.
    1
  44.  Radio Kaos   It makes sense if you're using the starships as mobile command centers to deal with a highly mobile terrorist whose full resources are still uncertain. The Mexican navy did essentially this a few years back when dealing with land based drug dealers. They took over some of the responsibilities of traditional law enforcement. The idea being that they had greater resources and naval command would be sufficiently isolated to prevent being corrupted and infiltrated by the wealthy and influential drug syndicates in the same way that land based police were. In general, modern day naval ships are actually a lot more versatile than the popular idea of old school battleships. They're often used to provide logistical support and coordinate land activity. However, in ST their tech makes starships even more versatile. They've been shown to be capable of surgical precision with no collateral damage, rapid personnel mobilization (transporters), surveillance, and they consume basically no power. They operate as laboratories, military installations, diplomatic centers, educational facilities, etc. In short, starships are not battleships. Hell even battleships are not 'battleships'. It makes a lot of sense they'd be used in this scenario.
    1
  45.  Radio Kaos   My point is exactly that they don't know much about him beyond the fact that he operates interplanetarily, is capable of doing a lot of damage, and is probably not alone. I mean that's really more than enough. Starships have so many benefits for capturing this kind of criminal. They can deliver surgical strikes (transporters, shuttlecrafts) but also have extra firepower in case he has more backup (eg alien allies, his own ship, space based weaponry), they can pursue and follow a highly mobile target, they have a large amount of personnel with a wide variety of expertise who all know how to work together, they have an isolated and well protected command structure, they have what is essentially a mobile crime lab, etc. But the biggest difference is that in the star trek world, the cost of deploying a starship is almost nothing. I mean seriously, Osama bin Laden was captured by the Navy in an operation coordinated on a carrier through the rapid deployment of troops to a residential setting with no civilian casualties. He was a much smaller threat and this was far more expensive. It'd be crazy if the Federation wasn't using starships.
    1
  46.  Radio Kaos   I don't know the specific structure of non-Starfleet law enforcement in the Federation, or the degree to which they were involved throughout the process of tracking this terrorist. My point was just that Starfleet pursuing the terrorist and using starships in the process is not so ridiculous that I'd call it a script contrivance. Particularly when one considers that they don't suffer from the drawbacks that today's naval apparatus suffer and offer obvious advantages.
    1
  47. On the seperate note of use of military apparatus domestically today, there are a couple of misconceptions I'd point out. The reasons the military doesn't operate domestically today are not because of the inevitability of collateral damage. The military can be very precise when needed. It really boils down to 2 factors. Cost and legality. There have been instances when law enforcement wanted to make use of military resources in dealing with domestic criminals. The issue is that this is unconstitutional without a presidential order. The bureaucratic challenge of getting this just makes it not worthwhile most of the time (although it has happened before). The other issue is cost. It's usually just not cost efficient to have the military pursue domestic criminals. I also think you misunderstand the nature of collateral damage. Usually, it's a function of cost as well. It's not that we can't avoid it, it's that it's pretty expensive and usually deemed not worth it when you're talking about foreign populations. The dollars you spend hurt your local electorate, but the foreign lives you take have no representation within the system you're answerable to. That got kinda dark. But my point is that in the ST universe, the risks, costs, and legal hurdles are all pretty much non-existent. So the math makes sense.
    1
  48.  Radio Kaos  The equation's not the same when there's no money, basically no fuel, no risk, no scarcity, etc. Also, McVeigh wasn't operating across multiple borders.
    1
  49.  Radio Kaos  I wasn't saying there is no cost/benefit calculation, just that the math is different. Your last point is solid though. Tbh, i don't remember the specific sequence of events & may have to rewatch.
    1
  50.  @icemachine79  What makes you say Starfleet isn't military?
    1